2nd amendment

[Wotton]

True. Unfortunately the same theories apply to the criminals vs the police force.
Wouldn't the unhappy citizens be criminals if they took up arms against the government? At least until they won. (But it seems silly to decide that citizens ought not to have firearms because criminals could do damage with them.)

[Xander]

Wouldn't the unhappy citizens be criminals if they took up arms against the government? At least until they won. (But it seems silly to decide that citizens ought not to have firearms because criminals could do damage with them.)
On this particular basis then why aren't fully automatic rifles allowed?

[Wotton]

One would assume because of this:

No government will give the common man means to depose them. It's not in their best interest to do so.
The government will try to get away with as much as it can, of course. It's all made up of human beings.

[Xander]

One would assume because of this:

The government will try to get away with as much as it can, of course. It's all made up of human beings.
So they give you the equivalent of a nuclear missile and you are stimied.

[geniusndisguise]

I doubt we are at the point now where citizens could overtake the government with weapons. Unless it was a majority, they'd only be seen as dangerous kooks, so the original intent of the second amendment is moot, it seems. That said, it's still part of the constitution and while I do not agree with doing things just because thats how they've always been done I do think if you're going to have a consititution it should be either followed or changed. Not that we adhere to it much anyway.

What does banning weapons accomplish? Who is more likely to follow the ban, those who are inclined to used them for malice or those who want to protect themselves. Law abiding citizens are left at a disadvantage under a ban. Even high powered weapons, as long as they are manufactured, will end up in criminal hands. Might as well allow them so they can worry what their opponents might have also.

[Xander]

I doubt we are at the point now where citizens could overtake the government with weapons. Unless it was a majority, they'd only be seen as dangerous kooks, so the original intent of the second amendment is moot, it seems. That said, it's still part of the constitution and while I do not agree with doing things just because thats how they've always been done I do think if you're going to have a consititution it should be either followed or changed. Not that we adhere to it much anyway.

What does banning weapons accomplish? Who is more likely to follow the ban, those who are inclined to used them for malice or those who want to protect themselves. Law abiding citizens are left at a disadvantage under a ban. Even high powered weapons, as long as they are manufactured, will end up in criminal hands. Might as well allow them so they can worry what their opponents might have also.
So allow everything because it's too difficult to control it? Anarchy?

It would appear that allowing personal firearms has not done much except make commiting crime easier. Most people, I would guess, will freeze under combat or threat conditions. Those that don't have a good likely hood of performin panic fire (oh and friendly fire most definately isn't). So you equip a granny with an Uzi. Result, innocents get sprayed with lead, she breaks her wrist and is either shot or arrested, the crook (if not dead) is even more likely to pay her "special" attention and perform their worst depravities on the one who threatened their continued existance.

If the funding where applied then I see no reason why non lethal alternatives cannot be made available.

Non lethal weapons may make criminals more likely to risk it but also it will make the civilian more likely to respond as it would not be such an irreversible action.

Oh and as for constitutions, shouldn't things written in relation to past environments be re written or are the origional people considered sooo clever that their words are liken to the words of a god and left un altered for generations?

[Wotton]

So they give you the equivalent of a nuclear missile and you are stimied.
? Please explain.

[Wotton]

It would appear that allowing personal firearms has not done much except make commiting crime easier.
Where have you been getting that from? I think it's difficult to make any claims as to what allowing personal firearms does or doesn't do.

I don't have any problem with non-lethal alternatives to guns, as well. I don't think anyone's suggesting that only things that could kill are worth having around.


Oh and as for constitutions, shouldn't things written in relation to past environments be re written or are the origional people considered sooo clever that their words are liken to the words of a god and left un altered for generations?
They were reasonable, and started up a pretty good system. The people in charge these days aren't quite so reasonable. I prefer a system where at least some of the excesses of government are cut down by our having a written constitution that's difficult to change and unpopular to ignore.

[Xander]

? Please explain.
As in if you raise your gun to the government then they can raise theirs as well. Yes you can go out in a blaze of glory but you cannot win, only draw. Much the same has been said about the use of nuclear weapons. See the film "Wargames" (I think) for illustration.

[Xander]

Where have you been getting that from? I think it's difficult to make any claims as to what allowing personal firearms does or doesn't do.
Well to be pedantic, if waving your gun in public is a criminal offense then letting you carry one round certainly makes it easier.

On a more serious note, brandishing a gun is a much more powerful method of persuasion than most things and so it makes it alot easier to rob a corner shop for example.

I don't have any problem with non-lethal alternatives to guns, as well. I don't think anyone's suggesting that only things that could kill are worth having around.
I was thinking more of a replacement.

They were reasonable, and started up a pretty good system. The people in charge these days aren't quite so reasonable. I prefer a system where at least some of the excesses of government are cut down by our having a written constitution that's difficult to change and unpopular to ignore.
How far is the constitution away from a religion though? The right to bear arms seems a little extreme for such a developed country.

I wonder if the whole reputation of loud and obnoxious is in part related to having such hardware to fall back on ? /jk

[geniusndisguise]

So allow everything because it's too difficult to control it? Anarchy?
Anarchy would be no consequences. Just because you're allowed to have it, doesn't mean you're allowed to do whatever you want with it.


It would appear that allowing personal firearms has not done much except make commiting crime easier.
Most people, I would guess, will freeze under combat or threat conditions. Those that don't have a good likely hood of performin panic fire (oh and friendly fire most definately isn't). Actually, it seems the recent resistance to firearms has made it easier for criminals. My grandfather belonged to a gun club at school and no one ever shot up his classroom.

So you equip a granny with an Uzi. This is a bit dramatic, I think. Granny will not have an uzi. Grandpa may have a rifle, and know how to use it. (Then again, maybe she does too.)

Result, innocents get sprayed with lead, she breaks her wrist and is either shot or arrested, the crook (if not dead) is even more likely to pay her "special" attention and perform their worst depravities on the one who threatened their continued existance. Of course if you own a weapon (especially if it's for protection) you should know how it operates. If you don't, what's the point? And, yes, I advocate meeting force with equal force.


If the funding where applied then I see no reason why non lethal alternatives cannot be made available.

Non lethal weapons may make criminals more likely to risk it but also it will make the civilian more likely to respond as it would not be such an irreversible action.Sure, why not? Whatever a person is comfortable with having.



Oh and as for constitutions, shouldn't things written in relation to past environments be re written or are the origional people considered sooo clever that their words are liken to the words of a god and left un altered for generations?
There is a process to change the constitution because it was known (yeah, even back then) that it would be necessary. Obviously things change and so do opinions. The problem is when it's ignored and laws are passed that don't follow it just because the process is too difficult.

[Wotton]

On a more serious note, brandishing a gun is a much more powerful method of persuasion than most things and so it makes it alot easier to rob a corner shop for example.
Sure. Or to stop your house from being robbed for the third time in a year, when kids from near the area know that you're wealthy & disabled and live alone, and the police can't station someone outside your home permanently.


I was thinking more of a replacement.
If it were really just as effective, and no one's trying to take away anyone's collection, it might be possible.


How far is the constitution away from a religion though? The right to bear arms seems a little extreme for such a developed country.
It doesn't seem extreme to me. Regarding the constitution, it's definitely a revered document--but I think it takes a little more than that to make a religion.

[Dom]

And, yes, I advocate meeting force with equal force.

Burgular in your house right, you get youur gun and go down stairs.... He doesn't appear to have a weapon yet it is YOU that has uped the problem, you've met unknown force, with potentially lethal force, if he has a weapon, which he may or may not, he will probably try to go for it, thinking you may shoot him, flight and fight come into play, if you don't have a gun sure he feels more secure to go through your belongings but he also doesn't feel the need to pack a piece himself.

A weapon escalates every confrontation, how can you claim you shot him in self defence meeting force with equal force, if you don't even know he's armed?

[geniusndisguise]

Burgular in your house right, you get youur gun and go down stairs.... He doesn't appear to have a weapon yet it is YOU that has uped the problem,
Wrong. He broke into my house. He has no right to be there and should be shot.

you've met unknown force, with potentially lethal force, if he has a weapon, which he may or may not, he will probably try to go for it, thinking you may shoot him, flight and fight come into play, if you don't have a gun sure he feels more secure to go through your belongings but he also doesn't feel the need to pack a piece himself. So we should let people ransack our houses so that they don't shoot us?


A weapon escalates every confrontation, how can you claim you shot him in self defence meeting force with equal force, if you don't even know he's armed? It was dark. I thought I saw a gun in his hand. Boo hoo hoo. :whistle:

[Xander]

A weapon escalates every confrontation, how can you claim you shot him in self defence meeting force with equal force, if you don't even know he's armed?
Exactly why non lethal alternatives, that still packs enough stopping power to stop them in their tracks, is a good idea.

As for the disabled person, I would think the best solution would be static defenses, though I realise that they are more expensive by a large magnitude that is a seperate issue. Surely a taser gun is less expensive than a handgun? Oh hangon I remember now that they're not as expensive as you expect they would be. A sword is more expensive than a revolver isn't it?

As for Gen's point on being able to use them, shouldn't this be a clause? Like driving a car (another lethal item), shouldn't gun ownership require a test?

[Wotton]

Burgular in your house right, you get youur gun and go down stairs.... He doesn't appear to have a weapon yet it is YOU that has uped the problem, you've met unknown force, with potentially lethal force, if he has a weapon, which he may or may not, he will probably try to go for it, thinking you may shoot him, flight and fight come into play, if you don't have a gun sure he feels more secure to go through your belongings but he also doesn't feel the need to pack a piece himself.
Not every person who's breaking into your house hopes you're not there. Some criminals will beat you up, rape you, or kill you if they find you there, especially if you look like you won't put up a good fight. Should we hope that, should we be unlucky enough to be targeted for a burglary or robbery, that we get a nice, pacifistic criminal who just wants to steal our things? Or should we take steps to be certain that we're not victimised more than we have to be?



As for the disabled person, I would think the best solution would be static defenses, though I realise that they are more expensive by a large magnitude that is a seperate issue. Surely a taser gun is less expensive than a handgun? Oh hangon I remember now that they're not as expensive as you expect they would be. A sword is more expensive than a revolver isn't it?
How close do you have to get for a taser gun to be effective? (I don't know much about them at all.)


As for Gen's point on being able to use them, shouldn't this be a clause? Like driving a car (another lethal item), shouldn't gun ownership require a test?
In theory, that'd be nice--but requiring literacy tests before voting sounds like a good idea in theory, too.

[Xander]

Not every person who's breaking into your house hopes you're not there. Some criminals will beat you up, rape you, or kill you if they find you there, especially if you look like you won't put up a good fight. Should we hope that, should we be unlucky enough to be targeted for a burglary or robbery, that we get a nice, pacifistic criminal who just wants to steal our things? Or should we take steps to be certain that we're not victimised more than we have to be?
I think there was some research that pointed to the idea that those who resist get worse treatment or something. The police round here tend to just want you to roll over and take it and then phone them so they can write it down.

How close do you have to get for a taser gun to be effective? (I don't know much about them at all.)
I believe the dart variants are effective out to around the 20 metre mark or further. Unsure as to their accuracy but they do tend to come with laser sights. Oh and because they're rechargeable (well the wired one's are) if the police don't get there quickly then you can reload to maximum and then shoot them all over again!!

In theory, that'd be nice--but requiring literacy tests before voting sounds like a good idea in theory, too.
Voting is a poll of opinion though. A driving test is for everyone elses safety as well as your own. Why not extend such a philosophy to guns?

[Wotton]

I think there was some research that pointed to the idea that those who resist get worse treatment or something. The police round here tend to just want you to roll over and take it and then phone them so they can write it down.
I don't believe it. I can believe that the police would argue for it, but I don't believe that it's true. I don't trust that someone who's already broken into my house isn't out to do me harm, as well as to steal my stuff; I'd rather not hope that statistics were on my side.


I believe the dart variants are effective out to around the 20 metre mark or further. Unsure as to their accuracy but they do tend to come with laser sights. Oh and because they're rechargeable (well the wired one's are) if the police don't get there quickly then you can reload to maximum and then shoot them all over again!!
Definitely helpful if there's more than one of them! However, I'd still leave it up to him to choose between a gun and a taser, even if "effective" means "will knock them out until the police get there".


Voting is a poll of opinion though. A driving test is for everyone elses safety as well as your own. Why not extend such a philosophy to guns?
For exactly the reason that literacy tests didn't work out so well: in practice, the tests could be used to stop people the tester considered unsavoury from becoming armed.

[Xander]

Wotton,

Can you not think of people who should really not be allowed to carry lethal weaponry?

I can think of plenty of groups of people who I would consider had lost their right to even take the test to own a gun. There are even some who would qualify despite not actually having done anything wrong like say the blind for instance.

[Zephyrus055]

Rights are granted and rescinded by humans. Some are assumed and others negotiated. That's the point isn't it?
There is a difference between social rights and natural rights.

[Wotton]

Wotton,

Can you not think of people who should really not be allowed to carry lethal weaponry?

I can think of plenty of groups of people who I would consider had lost their right to even take the test to own a gun. There are even some who would qualify despite not actually having done anything wrong like say the blind for instance.
Of course I can. But my definition of "better safe than sorry" aims for the government keeping its hands off as much as possible.

[Mountain_Recluse]

That is not being argued. The case is why go from nothing to lethal force? What would be the problem with restricting private ownership to tasers or only allow safety rounds?
Too often the amount of force necessary to stop somebody from doing harm, to one's self or another, is lethal.
Tasers can work well, but well enough to stop somebody in their tracks within a range of 20 feet, or 10 feet (the distance from my chair to the nearest outside door). I'd love to have that option rather than having to escalate from near nothing or perhaps pepper spray to lethal force. Even trained police have an escalation scenario for when the lower levels don't stop an assailant fast enough, or at all.
From Taser's Safety and Effectiveness (http://www.policeone.com/police-products/less-lethal/taser/articles/120718/)
A single application of a Taser could not be relied upon to be successful unfailingly. Indeed, Taser was "ineffective" 23% of the time from a single application. However, the researchers point out, "Taser training stresses the use of multiple applications in order to bring a suspect under control."
When deployed a second time, Taser's "ineffectiveness dropped to less than 3%."
We "civilians" can't get them as cheaply or as easily as we can buy guns. But we can get them.
Tasers for sale at GalleryofGuns.com (http://www.galleryofguns.com/tasercon/MainControls/TaserDesc.aspx) Note that the civilian version has less range (15ft rather than 21ft) than law enforcement versions. Law enforcement and other training has proven that a knife-wielding assailant 20ft away can be on you and knife you before you have a chance to draw and fire. We can only hope there is furniture or other stuff between them and us.

And I hate that use of the term "civilians" by police who are just as much civilians as the rest of us.

[Xander]

Of course I can. But my definition of "better safe than sorry" aims for the government keeping its hands off as much as possible.
Never move to Britain. I can't do anything dangerous without government guidelines and interferance. Perhaps you could lend me a few of those nice toys?

[Xander]

Too often the amount of force necessary to stop somebody from doing harm, to one's self or another, is lethal.
Tasers can work well, but well enough to stop somebody in their tracks within a range of 20 feet, or 10 feet (the distance from my chair to the nearest outside door). I'd love to have that option rather than having to escalate from near nothing or perhaps pepper spray to lethal force. Even trained police have an escalation scenario for when the lower levels don't stop an assailant fast enough, or at all.
From Taser's Safety and Effectiveness (http://www.policeone.com/police-products/less-lethal/taser/articles/120718/)
We "civilians" can't get them as cheaply or as easily as we can buy guns. But we can get them.
Tasers for sale at GalleryofGuns.com (http://www.galleryofguns.com/tasercon/MainControls/TaserDesc.aspx) Note that the civilian version has less range (15ft rather than 21ft) than law enforcement versions. Law enforcement and other training has proven that a knife-wielding assailant 20ft away can be on you and knife you before you have a chance to draw and fire. We can only hope there is furniture or other stuff between them and us.

And I hate that use of the term "civilians" by police who are just as much civilians as the rest of us.

TASER energy weapons are field proven as 95% effective in actual police use ? the highest of any non-lethal device. TASER International makes the only non-lethal device that can truly incapacitate people under the influence of PCP and other dangerous drugs. Further, a hit anywhere on the body can be effective, making it easy to use and more reliable under stress.
Sounds good.
I know, I know. It's advertising but still it's sounds good.

5. Missing when firing a Taser is the greatest cause of failure.

Analyzing 50 cases of Taser failure, the researchers found that missing the subject with both probes accounted for 38% and baggy clothing worn by the suspect caused 32%. Other factors included: probe coming loose, 28%; suspect grabbing the Taser, 2%; unit malfunction, 4%; cartridge fell off, 2%. (Recent Taser improvements have addressed some of the failure problems, the researchers note.)
Would seem to me from this section of the report that tasers are effective and well liked by law enforcement.

It would also seem that the failure rate of which you mention is comprised mostly of misses rather than complications. I would agree that the weapon would appear to be less effective than a conventional firearm on this basis in isolation but I would think that when incorperating response time (increased due to no oh my god I'm gonna kill someone thought), legality and the prospect of being put in jail that the taser is alot more attractive weapon. I don't know how much a regular firearm would cost you but I'd imagine that a taser is more expensive.

Another factor to consider is that these devices will advance and need support to do so. If their not bought then their not made. If they are not used then they won't advance. Also if you wait round too long as a society then no one will give up their precious freudian toys for a piece of plastic and some wires. Speaking of wires I believe that it should be possible to eventually develop a taser which doesn't require wires (I thought they already had to be honest) this should increase the effective range.

[Zephyrus055]

Xander is right. Civilian weapons are useless against the firepower of modern war machines. If the point of owning weapons is to put the government in to a compromisable situation, then there is no point anymore to owning weapons at all.

I personally believe that owning firearms should be allowed, because on the assumption that criminals will always have access to them on the black market, I do not want to be defenseless.

And nobody has addressed the historical indication that decentralized government has caused more harm than good. The Warring States Period in China, the Gracchi Revolution in Rome, European Feudalism and the distinct plutocracy in America before Teddy Roosevelt to name a few. I can cite many examples of when a centralized government comprising of talented and accomplished individuals brought peace and progress to the countries they ruled. While there is evidence of centralized government messing up, I do not recall a decentralized government ever being plausible for a long period of time.

[wildcat]

I'm curious how other INTPs feel about the 2nd amendment, gun control, and the expiration of the "Assault Weapons Ban".

I happen to believe that my right to defend myself is inalienable, and am glad that the 2nd amendment acknowledges that (that's how I interpret it, anyway). I exercise my right to be prepared by legally carrying a handgun when I can. I follow the law, but resent the government presuming to have the right to limit my ownership. Gun USE should be limited, but not gun ownership. Gun control violates the principle that I have the right to defend myself.

Self defense is the only reason that I would ever use a gun or any other lethal force against another being (human or otherwise)*. But if my life or my family's life was threatened, I wouldn't hesitate to protect them or myself.

The AWB, in my opinion, was a joke. It sounds credible, but it was really a "scary looking guns, be very afraid" weapons ban. I'll rant more about this if necessary, but that's the basic view for now.


*Yes, I'm a vegetarian. :huh:
There was this aristocrat (I almost wrote aristocat) who shot four motorcyclists who were trespassing in his property. It is quite obvious it could not have happened had he not owned the weapon.
But according to you he had the right to defend himself.
I do not condemn you. I am impartial in this matter.

[Dom]

I personally believe that owning firearms should be allowed, because on the assumption that criminals will always have access to them on the black market, I do not want to be defenseless.

Why do crims have them?? Do all crims have them? If you let your civilian and even law enforcement officers have them then EVERY crook will get one, but while the crook can depend on the civilian and law enforcement probably not having one, he doens't feel he needs one as much....

Not every Criminal wants to kill you, he jsut wants my telly, make him think his life maybe on the line, then better your bottom dollar he'll get a gun! I fear he'd be more likely to get a gun than he would not try to nick my telly.

[Wotton]

Why do crims have them?? Do all crims have them? If you let your civilian and even law enforcement officers have them then EVERY crook will get one, but while the crook can depend on the civilian and law enforcement probably not having one, he doens't feel he needs one as much....

Not every Criminal wants to kill you, he jsut wants my telly, make him think his life maybe on the line, then better your bottom dollar he'll get a gun! I fear he'd be more likely to get a gun than he would not try to nick my telly.
That's not true. Criminals are, in fact, just normal people. Not all of them do want to even have the chance to kill people, just like everyone else, whether or not they perceive other people to have guns. Law enforcement officers do have guns, and so do a lot of criminals, but it's not necessarily one because of the other--it could just as easily be because both sides recognise the benefits.

This might be different if laws changed in England. But in the US, it's already a possibility that any citizen has a gun at home or any shopkeeper has a gun behind his counter. All the criminals who want one to "step it up" should already have them. I already assume that criminals who break into my house want to take my computer AND do me bodily harm. In Australia, where citizens tend not to be armed, I've still heard reports of houses being broken into and the residents killed or beaten up. If the resident has a gun within grabbing distance and knows how to use it (that last part being very important), it'd benefit him more than it costs him in a few more criminals possibly becoming even more violent.

Anyway, it's not like the people who are against gun control want to force every single person in the country to bear arms, regardless of preference. I know plenty of Americans who don't want to own a gun; that's their choice. I, personally, would prefer to have one.

[Xander]

Basic points :-

If you allow civilians to be armed then the probability of the presence of a firearm at any inccident raises dramatically. This accordingly raises the probability of lethal force being used.

If you are a criminal and your target is armed then you will equip yourself and act in order to defeat their defences. This include arming themselves with guns and shooting first. If the target is not armed then if you do include a firearm in your arsenal then it is not really required (yes it makes people more compliant but it also raises the level of response by the police etc).

There are viable alternatives to firearms when thinking about defending your home. However they cost more and are more easily defeated (though have cunning uses) but they are legal and shouldn't result in you facing a murder charge nor assault with a deadly weapon.

Even with allowing the populace to carry firearms there is no case for allowing the range of capabilities they do at the moment. High power rifles are unecessary especially for "home protection" as you'd be capable of killing someone next door with one accident.

Having so much ammunition available in all calibres and types only increases the chances of a criminal being able to steal a normally highly illegal weapon and then buy the ammunition for it legally rather than forcing them to produce it.

One question, are armour peircing rounds available? Teflon coated, tungsten core, THV, Sabot etc. Any type at all.

[Xander]

If the resident has a gun within grabbing distance and knows how to use it (that last part being very important), it'd benefit him more than it costs him in a few more criminals possibly becoming even more violent.
So your carrying a gun and your intent on robbing a guy and you've just broken in.

Situation A.
He's unarmed.

Do you shoot him?

Situation B.
He reaches for his gun which is next to him.

Do you shoot him?

[Wotton]

You're going to get different answers to your hypothetical situation depending on who you poll. As I said, criminals are also people. They're not a homogeneous malevolent mass in an arms race against real citizens.



If you allow civilians to be armed then the probability of the presence of a firearm at any inccident raises dramatically. This accordingly raises the probability of lethal force being used.
Maybe. I don't think it's possible to state how many criminals already have weapons. (If you mean that the victim having a gun raises the probability that a criminal will get hurt--I have little sympathy.) This is one of those situations, too, where there are fifty studies in support of either side of the issue, and no one is without bias.


If you are a criminal and your target is armed then you will equip yourself and act in order to defeat their defences. This include arming themselves with guns and shooting first. If the target is not armed then if you do include a firearm in your arsenal then it is not really required (yes it makes people more compliant but it also raises the level of response by the police etc).
Maybe. The individual criminal might be against violence or might have a weapon & intent to harm already, though. Shooting first depends on who realises that someone else is there first, anyway; it won't necessarily be the criminal. He might have thought the house was empty.

As to "not really required", it's not really required to enter someone else's house with intent to steal, either. Some of the people who do that will be entirely comfortable hurting someone just because he's there. (Like my disabled acquaintance who was beaten up by the people who entered his house because he was unable to run away or to defend himself.) Some of them will decide not to harm someone who's unarmed, which is great for the people who aren't unarmed--they'll only have the fear & feeling of violation that comes with robbery.


There are viable alternatives to firearms when thinking about defending your home. However they cost more and are more easily defeated (though have cunning uses) but they are legal and shouldn't result in you facing a murder charge nor assault with a deadly weapon.
Would you face a murder charge or assult with a deadly weapon if you acted in order to protect yourself from an intruder in your home?


Even with allowing the populace to carry firearms there is no case for allowing the range of capabilities they do at the moment. High power rifles are unecessary especially for "home protection" as you'd be capable of killing someone next door with one accident.
I can't say I feel strongly either way on that, or on the available ammunition. I don't know about armour-piercing rounds, either. My sense is that they're unavailable or at least quite restricted throughout the US, and I haven't seen them in the gun stores I've been into. But I lived in California--not exactly the most firearm-friendly state.

[Dom]

That's not true. Criminals are, in fact, just normal people. Not all of them do want to even have the chance to kill people, just like everyone else, whether or not they perceive other people to have guns. Law enforcement officers do have guns, and so do a lot of criminals, but it's not necessarily one because of the other--it could just as easily be because both sides recognise the benefits.

This might be different if laws changed in England. But in the US, it's already a possibility that any citizen has a gun at home or any shopkeeper has a gun behind his counter. All the criminals who want one to "step it up" should already have them. I already assume that criminals who break into my house want to take my computer AND do me bodily harm. In Australia, where citizens tend not to be armed, I've still heard reports of houses being broken into and the residents killed or beaten up. If the resident has a gun within grabbing distance and knows how to use it (that last part being very important), it'd benefit him more than it costs him in a few more criminals possibly becoming even more violent.

Anyway, it's not like the people who are against gun control want to force every single person in the country to bear arms, regardless of preference. I know plenty of Americans who don't want to own a gun; that's their choice. I, personally, would prefer to have one.

I hate guns, let get this clear, I dont think they are 'neat' or 'cool' or 'clever' the serve almost one single purpose and I hate them.

However, if by some mad freak occurance I found myself living in the US I would purchase oen and learn how to use it.... why? Not cos I like them, not cos I want to have it actually, but because I have no choice unless I want any punk who breaks in my house to be able to do anything they want.

Why cos the punk will have a gun, why cos they are easy to get.

Here most petty crims do not carry guns, if they thought the police and civilians would have one, they would go get one too.

I don't accept your arguement, I honestly think there is a strong case that an armed civilian population and armed law enforcement agencies really do cause criminals to become mroe violent and more deperate in their crime.

[Dom]

You're going to get different answers to your hypothetical situation depending on who you poll. As I said, criminals are also people. They're not a homogeneous malevolent mass in an arms race against real citizens.


You have a visible gun, the other guy is going for a gun, you WILL fire.

If he can see your gun and is still going for it he has the balls to shoot you, you have no choice but to shoot him....

Now take the guns away and there is much smaller chance of anyone getting killed.



Maybe. I don't think it's possible to state how many criminals already have weapons. (If you mean that the victim having a gun raises the probability that a criminal will get hurt--I have little sympathy.) This is one of those situations, too, where there are fifty studies in support of either side of the issue, and no one is without bias.

Yes it raises the chance of a criminal gettign hurt, it also raises the victims chance of going to jail and certianly doubles the victims chances of getting hurt. Add a weapon to any situation of any type and it dramatically increases the chance of someone being hurt.

[wildcat]

That's a nice article. I didn't realize the founding fathers considered guns to be so harmless. :lol:
The classical westerns depict the base of history quite accurately in this regard. The frontier wars and the town thugs. Many a thing has changed since those bygone days. The reactionary opportunists love to cling to the past. Their dutiful sons and granddaughters post in forums.

[Dom]

Would you face a murder charge or assult with a deadly weapon if you acted in order to protect yourself from an intruder in your home?


Absolutely, especially if you fired first, and doubly if the intruder turned out not to be armed, and tripple if your firearm is illegal.

Only if it was very obvious that you had no choice but to KILL him to prevent harm to yourself would you get away without a trail.....

[Xander]

You're going to get different answers to your hypothetical situation depending on who you poll. As I said, criminals are also people. They're not a homogeneous malevolent mass in an arms race against real citizens.
I was asking yourself. I cannot ask everyone unless we start a new thread with a poll. For a side point that could be a little OTT.

Maybe. I don't think it's possible to state how many criminals already have weapons. (If you mean that the victim having a gun raises the probability that a criminal will get hurt--I have little sympathy.) This is one of those situations, too, where there are fifty studies in support of either side of the issue, and no one is without bias.
It matters not who had the gun to begin with. It only matters that there is one present. Who gets shot is not dependant on who is a criminal but more on where the gun was pointing when it was fired. Like I said, friendly fire isn't.

Maybe. The individual criminal might be against violence or might have a weapon & intent to harm already, though. Shooting first depends on who realises that someone else is there first, anyway; it won't necessarily be the criminal. He might have thought the house was empty.
Most people try to follow the paths of least resistance. Why get yourself put up for a heavier sentence if caught purely because you wanted to carry a gun. Plus have you ever thought what happens if they break in to steal your guns? Oh and I'm fairly sure you'd get prosecuted for shooting first, even in your own home. Just incase you just shot a cop when you didn't hear him declare himself when entering your house to track the intruder he just saw coming after your guns.

As to "not really required", it's not really required to enter someone else's house with intent to steal, either. Some of the people who do that will be entirely comfortable hurting someone just because he's there. (Like my disabled acquaintance who was beaten up by the people who entered his house because he was unable to run away or to defend himself.) Some of them will decide not to harm someone who's unarmed, which is great for the people who aren't unarmed--they'll only have the fear & feeling of violation that comes with robbery.
Don't get me wrong I am with you in that those kind of people should be shot in the head, simple, done, dusted. No problem. However it would be folly for me to start handing out weapons to everyone with that in mind. All that achieves is giving everyone the ability to make impulsive decisions regarding someone elses innocence or guilt and deal out the punishment. Vigillantes are cool but often dangerous criminals themselves.

It would appear to me that it would require constant vigilance to ensure that the righteous fire that burns against such violent people doesn't turn the weilder into a vicious person in the process.

Would you face a murder charge or assult with a deadly weapon if you acted in order to protect yourself from an intruder in your home?
Yes. They kind of frown upon "this kid broken into my house. I was waiting on the other side of the room with my gun. I shot him before he landed on the floor from jumping through the window that I had left open".

I can't say I feel strongly either way on that, or on the available ammunition. I don't know about armour-piercing rounds, either. My sense is that they're unavailable or at least quite restricted throughout the US, and I haven't seen them in the gun stores I've been into. But I lived in California--not exactly the most firearm-friendly state.
Hmm no armour peircing rounds. So that defeats the point of being able to bear arms against the government as they'd just wear kevlar and also oh look that's all a criminal has to do to render your arsenal ineffective! In fact I believe the fashion was at one point to make puffa jackets wiht kevlar linnings for the ganstas.

[Ivy]

I think the right to bear arms is one of our most precious rights.

[Xander]

The classical westerns depict the base of history quite accurately in this regard. The frontier wars and the town thugs. Many a thing has changed since those bygone days. The reactionary opportunists love to cling to the past. Their dutiful sons and granddaughters post in forums.
A little harsh is it?

There is the case that if guns have been legal for a long time then people will naturally arm themselves against the armed criminal element. The only way out of this is to disarm the lot or to come up with something better.

Disarming would be a logistical, political and policing nightmare.

Developing something better would require time, funding and most importantly the support of the people.

[Xander]

I think the right to bear arms is one of our most precious rights.
They have the right to bear arms in Australia. Over here your considered uncouth however. A conventional t-shirt is much more acceptable.

[Ivy]

They have the right to bear arms in Australia. Over here your considered uncouth however. A conventional t-shirt is much more acceptable.

That's "bare arms," and it's a bear of a totally different color. :)

[Xander]

That's "bare arms," and it's a bear of a totally different color. :)
It would be bare if they didn't have so much hair.
:P

[wildcat]

A little harsh is it?

There is the case that if guns have been legal for a long time then people will naturally arm themselves against the armed criminal element. The only way out of this is to disarm the lot or to come up with something better.

Disarming would be a logistical, political and policing nightmare.

Developing something better would require time, funding and most importantly the support of the people.
They can develop something better. They can start to treat the African Americans with respect.

The schools are only for the Js and the Ps drop out. They can change the school system.

The Americans pay taxes also. The tax money does not recircle.

They should arrest the labour union leaders, the lobbers in the Congress and the Senate and the conglomerate tycoons who violate the freedom of the free market.

Most of the tax money is derived from the small time enterpreneurs. Many of them die in poverty.

Not that we in Europe handle things any better. We are even worse, on all accounts.

[Xander]

They can develop something better. They can start to treat the African Americans with respect.

The schools are only for the Js and the Ps drop out. They can change the school system.

The Americans pay taxes also. The tax money does not recircle.

They should arrest the labour union leaders, the lobbers in the Congress and the Senate and the conglomerate tycoons who violate the freedom of the free market.

Most of the tax money is derived from the small time enterpreneurs. Many of them die in poverty.

Not that we in Europe handle things any better. We are even worse, on all accounts.
Well yes but this sounds like you need a populace who can see past the end of their own front lawn. I thought I was the altruist?

[wildcat]

Well yes but this sounds like you need a populace who can see past the end of their own front lawn. I thought I was the altruist?
You are the genuine INTPc altruist. We all know it and we take our cap off for you.. except for the Hustler-Lee gang of course. But what do they know.
Nothing.

[Wotton]

I'd respond to the posts since my last, but I get the idea that you're trying to stir up feelings, rather than to argue. The overreaction & exaggeration is more likely to make me dismiss than to see your points.

[Dom]

I'd respond to the posts since my last, but I get the idea that you're trying to stir up feelings, rather than to argue. The overreaction & exaggeration is more likely to make me dismiss than to see your points.

Well you can feel relaxed in that attitude then, but certainly I have not tried to stir up feelings rather than argue, and I don't feel I've overreacted either.

I think it's obvious that we've started going in circles. This is often the case where people disagree and where they are unlikely to change their minds argue!

[demagogic_schizoid]

AFAIK there is no better way to make an old lady who's house has just been broken into equal in a struggle to the burglar, who is very likely to be a strong young man, than by allowing her to own a firearm. If anyone can think of a more effective way she can defend herself and her property, please let me know.

By the way, do the Americans on this forum realise that in the mid 1990's there was a massacre of schoolchildren in Dunblane, Scotland, and regulations on firearms were significantly tightened. The campaign in favour of gun control was led by the daily tabloid The Sun - which is owned by none other than Rupert Murdoch.

[Wotton]

Sorry, Moridin, I didn't actually mean you there. You were overreacting, from my point of view, but it looked like it was more out of strong feelings on the subject than out of a desire to stir shit up--whereas I got the opposite idea from Xander's post.


I think it's obvious that we've started going in circles. This is often the case where people disagree and where they are unlikely to change their minds argue!
Right. If I thought the same things you think, we'd be arguing for the same side. We're definitely all talking from different experiences.

[Xander]

Sorry, Moridin, I didn't actually mean you there. You were overreacting, from my point of view, but it looked like it was more out of strong feelings on the subject than out of a desire to stir shit up--whereas I got the opposite idea from Xander's post.


Right. If I thought the same things you think, we'd be arguing for the same side. We're definitely all talking from different experiences.
Um.. Hi there. INTP here. Not shit stirring. Just showing linkage between attitude to problem solving in relation to firearms. If that causes emotion in you then my apologies but I'm being detatched here.

Also I'm speaking from no real life experience of firearms up close and personal but my conceptual understanding of the subject from what I've read/ seen/ heard and then extrapolated from.

My intention is to analyse why the firearm is considered such a normal part of american life and more than that how it is a defensible part of a persons posessions in what is supposed to be the most developed country.

This may cause emotions to come into it but I was hoping for detatched analysis rather than a shouting match.

I hope this clears up where I'm coming from.

[Xander]

AFAIK there is no better way to make an old lady who's house has just been broken into equal in a struggle to the burglar, who is very likely to be a strong young man, than by allowing her to own a firearm. If anyone can think of a more effective way she can defend herself and her property, please let me know.
A. Stop him entering in the first place.
B. High tech devices like tasers have no recoil (AFAIK) and so would be more gentle to herself and means she won't accidentally shoot the postman if she has a "funny turn".
C. Static security devices such as rambling roses to ensure the more accessble vunerable points are painful to get to.

I'm no security expert. There are devices out there but guns are the most prominent.

Plus if your worried about defending against one intruder then your making an assumption based on statistics. If everyone protects vs one intruder then a paranoid person would protect against two. They have success and then that is the norm. Now we're protecting against fifteen assailants and the best weapon for your gran is a MK19 Model 3 automatic grenade launcher.

How much is enough?


By the way, do the Americans on this forum realise that in the mid 1990's there was a massacre of schoolchildren in Dunblane, Scotland, and regulations on firearms were significantly tightened. The campaign in favour of gun control was led by the daily tabloid The Sun - which is owned by none other than Rupert Murdoch.
We have no schools with metal detectors at the front door though do we?

[demagogic_schizoid]

A. Stop him entering in the first place.
B. High tech devices like tasers have no recoil (AFAIK) and so would be more gentle to herself and means she won't accidentally shoot the postman if she has a "funny turn".
C. Static security devices such as rambling roses to ensure the more accessble vunerable points are painful to get to.

I'm no security expert. There are devices out there but guns are the most prominent.

To stop him entering in the first place would require either a radical change in the socio-economic make-up of our society, very costly and time-consuming measures to make one's house as secure as possible, or a policeman on every corner. For now I think a gun is the best option.

As for static security devices - you haven't met my nan! It's bad enough having to go round to help her turn the tv on every other day, but I don't fancy prizing her ankle out of a bear trap as well.

I agree arming the population is not ideal, but from a personal point of view I would feel safer if I had a gun to protect myself.



Plus if your worried about defending against one intruder then your making an assumption based on statistics. If everyone protects vs one intruder then a paranoid person would protect against two. They have success and then that is the norm. Now we're protecting against fifteen assailants and the best weapon for your gran is a MK19 Model 3 automatic grenade launcher.

How much is enough?


We have no schools with metal detectors at the front door though do we?


Well of course there have to be limits on what is legally available. Weapons of mass destruction are clearly not proportional to the threat posed by our current crime rate, and anyway how many people would really want to wn such weapons, or to spend so much?

I'm not an anarchist Xander, of course I believe there should be strict limits as to what firearms are legal and which ones are not.

By the way, we do have schools with metal detectors, although admittedly for knives and not guns. The reason I wrote that was to comment on the hypocrisy of Mr.Murdoch, owner of Fox and darling of the American right.

[Wotton]

Um.. Hi there. INTP here. Not shit stirring.
So why the obvious exaggeration? There's a huge difference between this example:

Yes. They kind of frown upon "this kid broken into my house. I was waiting on the other side of the room with my gun. I shot him before he landed on the floor from jumping through the window that I had left open"
and someone who legitimately shoots to defend himself--and I'm certain you know that.

And added onto this:

Don't get me wrong I am with you in that those kind of people should be shot in the head, simple, done, dusted. No problem. However it would be folly for me to start handing out weapons to everyone with that in mind. All that achieves is giving everyone the ability to make impulsive decisions regarding someone elses innocence or guilt and deal out the punishment. Vigillantes are cool but often dangerous criminals themselves.
it doesn't look at all like a serious argument.

I'm not looking for a shouting match, either, but I'm also not looking for responses that are looking to poke fun at stereotypes that I also think are ridiculous, instead of actually responding to what I said.

[Xander]

To stop him entering in the first place would require either a radical change in the socio-economic make-up of our society, very costly and time-consuming measures to make one's house as secure as possible, or a policeman on every corner. For now I think a gun is the best option.
I was thinking of locks on the windows and doors combined with a couple of stickers from real high priced security firms. Let's face it the criminal elements over here aren't your brightest sparks are they.

OOO perhaps if you just put a sign up with a picture of a 12 bore shotgun saying "I'm not afraid, are you?" then you wouldn't actually need the gun?

As for static security devices - you haven't met my nan! It's bad enough having to go round to help her turn the tv on every other day, but I don't fancy prizing her ankle out of a bear trap as well.
What if you go round to turn the TV on, she doesn't here you coming and you end up with your centre parting starting almost at your nose?

With power comes responsibility. Also you need to be able to handle the power. The elderly benefit most from a car as they usually can't walk far. Unfortunately they are often the worst drivers as their bodies aren't working at peak efficiency any more which is why they could do with the car in the first place.

I'm not meaning to be harsh. Hopefully you can see my point.
Oh and say hi for me ;)

I agree arming the population is not ideal, but from a personal point of view I would feel safer if I had a gun to protect myself.
But you must realise that in which case anyone looking to make a living by stealing off you will know you have a gun and raise their own equipment to suit. It's an arms race within the civilian populace.

Well of course there have to be limits on what is legally available. Weapons of mass destruction are clearly not proportional to the threat posed by our current crime rate, and anyway how many people would really want to wn such weapons, or to spend so much?
But our current crime rate is in the context of a society without firearms. Does that have an impact?

I'm not an anarchist Xander,
Shame you'd have a good theme tune ;)

of course I believe there should be strict limits as to what firearms are legal and which ones are not.
Where should the line be drawn? Like pocket knives? You can have a gun as long as it'd only kill someone with a helping wind oh and firing it directly down?

By the way, we do have schools with metal detectors, although admittedly for knives and not guns. The reason I wrote that was to comment on the hypocrisy of Mr.Murdoch, owner of Fox and darling of the American right.
I realised it was a political statement though I know nothing of politics. I didn't realise we did have metal detectors, it was a suspicion however.

[Xander]

So why the obvious exaggeration? There's a huge difference between this example:

and someone who legitimately shoots to defend himself--and I'm certain you know that.

And added onto this:

it doesn't look at all like a serious argument.

I'm not looking for a shouting match, either, but I'm also not looking for responses that are looking to poke fun at stereotypes that I also think are ridiculous, instead of actually responding to what I said.
My apologies I see now why you are less than pleased. I wasn't meaning it to be read like that but I see where your getting it from.

I am looking at extremes because to argue the specific balance would take forever and is far more of a detail orientated finishers job.

Also in the break in scenario I see that as the logical conclusion. You may be an intelligent and thinking person but I'd guess your a minority. If surprised and armed most people would either snap shoot or freeze, neither of which is healthy with a firearm as both will get you killed. Therefore I paradied your situation to highlight the pieces which I saw as ludicrous. I should have been more plain speaking. Apologies.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Alexander, I wouldn't imagine many people walk around the house carrying a gun. It's a case of having it hidden away in the bedroom in case you have to confront an intruder at night.

I agree with your concern about the elderly being given fire-arms. Maybe everyone buying a gun should be abliged to pass an accuracy test and a test of their mental health. I wouldn't personally let my nan loose with a gun, but I think she should have the right to use whatever necessary if she is confronted by an intruder, like we all should, and even if that means some dangerous people get guns I say that, to be honest, most dangerous people can get hold of a gun anyway if they really want to shoot someone. I think there are enough restrictions we could put in place to make the policy workable and beneficial to all. Canada has a very high rate of gun ownership, yet a very low rate of gun crime.

[Xander]

Alexander,
:rofl:
That reminds me of Mrs Luddington at primary school!!
:rofl:

I wouldn't imagine many people walk around the house carrying a gun. It's a case of having it hidden away in the bedroom in case you have to confront an intruder at night.

I agree with your concern about the elderly being given fire-arms. Maybe everyone buying a gun should be abliged to pass an accuracy test and a test of their mental health. I wouldn't personally let my nan loose with a gun, but I think she should have the right to use whatever necessary if she is confronted by an intruder, like we all should, and even if that means some dangerous people get guns I say that, to be honest, most dangerous people can get hold of a gun anyway if they really want to shoot someone. I think there are enough restrictions we could put in place to make the policy workable and beneficial to all.
Would be a swine to integrate over the "if it's on route it's not a weapon but if you have to retrieve it then it counts" bs.

Canada has a very high rate of gun ownership, yet a very low rate of gun crime.
Oh come on. Everyone knows it's cause they're too polite to shoot!

[demagogic_schizoid]

Haven't you heard of Terrence and Philip? Yes I'm back, how long do you htink a train journey lasts? I was getting paid for that earlier ya know. It's something they call work but clearly it's more like wasting time professionally.

[Xander]

Haven't you heard of Terrence and Philip? Yes I'm back, how long do you htink a train journey lasts? I was getting paid for that earlier ya know. It's something they call work but clearly it's more like wasting time professionally.
Well I hiope you didn't think you were alone in that particular habit. The posting from work that is rather than the whole train journey or anything to do with my uncle you sick little puppy!!